Selecting Transit Priority Areas in the Sacramento Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Process Chris Benner and Bidita Tithi

 Summarize draft report  Get feedback on key lessons from work to date 2

 Purpose  Summarize process and present products that emerged from social equity analysis of potential TPA sites  Highlight lessons learned  Audience  Sacramento stakeholders  Regional planning and social equity leaders from other regions throughout the country 3

 Executive Summary  Background and Process  Proposed and Final Specific Indicator and Index Components  Vulnerability  Opportunities  Equity Considerations in Prioritizing TOD  Conclusions  Appendices 4

Basic Neighborhood Demographics

Equity Priorities: Cell # 1: (High likelihood of success/ high impact Cell # 3: Low likelihood of success but high impact

 Institutional commitment to equity:  SACOG’s inclusion of equity from the very beginning of grant and process was important  Substantial community capacity:  High level of discussion in community meetings reflects impressive level of capacity of participants in engaging in regional land use issues 11

 Process as important as product:  “There are frequently vast differences between the cultures and perspective of social equity organizing and advocacy on the one hand and formal planning professionals on the other. While there are frequently shared goals around social equity, there are substantial differences in institutional pressures, organizational opportunities and constraint, perspectives and priorities. This process certainly didn’t erase those difference, but did contribute to strengthened ties between community organizers and planners in the region, and was important for building broad acceptance of the indices as useful tools in SACOG’s equity planning process” 12

 Data availability  Working with American Community Survey for neighborhood level analysis has severe limitations  Ambiguous indicators  E.g. choice riders versus dependent riders in use of non-auto means of transportation to work  Outcomes, not inputs or causes  Indicators don’t measure process/inputs that results in outcomes  Implementation  Unclear next steps  Highly dependent on local authorities, and their relationship with developers and neighborhood residents 13